We see that Bargnani is assisted on about 10% more of his field goals than Johnson and Johnson has about twice the percentage of his shots blocked. Johnson also has a significantly higher eFG% than Bargnani.

The difference can be explained thusly
---------------------------------------------------
1. Johnson gets a higher percentage of his field goals off of rebounds. No assist required on this play. Johnson has a higher percentage of his shots blocked. This is due to Johnson shooting more close in shots where it is more congested with more defenders on many of the plays.

Johnson also has higher eFG% because a significantly higher percentage of his shot attempts come a lot closer to the basket than Bargnani's do. However, when you read on you might be surprised to see that less then 20% come from garbage plays; i.e. off of rebounds.

Contrast
-----------
26% of Bargnani's are from the "Inside" with just 1% being tip-ins.
46% of Bosh's shots were from the inside with 5% being tip-ins.
79% of Johnson's shots were from the inside with 10% being tip-ins.

So what do we see here. Most likely better floor spacing with Johnson and Bargnani than with Bosh and Bargnani. Johnson and Bargnani's offense styles appear to compliment one another and not overlap by too much. It seems to me that this is a good thing.

Bagnani gets 64% or nearly 2/3 of his shots from three plays; i.e. Spot Up, Post Up and Pick and Roll

Johnson on the other hand get 65.2% of his shots from four plays if you count Off Rebound as a play. They are in order, Pick and Roll, Off Rebound, Cut and Post Up.

What is really different here is that Bargnani gets almost 40% of his shots off of one type of shot, where Johnson does not get more than 20% of his shots from one type of shot.

Conclusion
------------------
Bargnani relies quite heavily on on what I would call stationary shots; i.e. Getting to a spot and receiving a pass, 54% of his shots. Bargnani is assisted on 81% of his jump shots (see link) and almost 40% of his shots are spot up shots. So for Bargnani to score it appears that he needs to get to a spot come to a stop and receive a pass. At which time if he able to get off a shot he either shoots a spot up shot or a post up most most likely jump shot.

Johnson on the other hand contrary to what a lot of fans think showed that he scores with a good variety of shots, much more so than Bargnani. Where was Johnson the weakest last season? In Isolation and Spot Up shots. To try and remedy that situation Johnson has spent the summer working on his dribbling and jump shooting.

If he is successful in improving his dribbling and jump shooting enough he will have a extremely versatile arsenal of shots from which he can score.

Johnson it appears is a lot closer to becoming a well rounded scorer than Bargnani. Taking more spot up shots will no doubt lower Johnson's offensive efficiency a bit whereas improving is Isolation ability should not negatively affect his efficiency and may improve his points per possession (PPP)

I think Bargs should cut in more often, he did it maybe once a night last year and he always managed either a lay-up, a dunk or an and one. He's quicker than most centers, and he has pretty good feet, I don't know why he doesn't do it more often. I don't know how many times he successfully run across the free throw line, and dunked it over the side of the other player.

I agree that there should be a better floor spacing without Bosh. This might also lead to a different shot selection. I mean, how much Bargnani's shots selections were influenced by Bosh being on the floor? More than Amir's, I would say. So, I'm not sure that Amir and Bargnani's individual stats are completely comparable.
Second thought. If I read the stats correctly, out of 100 shots, 83 of Amir's and 96 of Bargnani's were not from offensive rebounds. Of Amir's 83, 68 were assisted (81,9%), and 15 weren't. Of Bargnani's 96, 75 were assisted (78,1%), and 21 weren't. If you count out the shots from offensive rebounds, which are not a result of team plays as much as the other shots, it seems to me that Amir more than Bargnani needs to be assisted.

Bargs will be going in the paint alot more this year now that Bosh is gone, that's for sure. This could be good news for TO. Because if teams start doube teaming Bargs in the paint, then Bargs becomes Bosh and Kleiza become Bargs. Kleiza and the rest of the team will be getting better looks... Not sure, let's just hope. He said last year he wasn't used to being double teamed, thus he had quite abit of turnovers when double teamed...

Bargs will be going in the paint alot more this year now that Bosh is gone, that's for sure. This could be good news for TO. Because if teams start doube teaming Bargs in the paint, then Bargs becomes Bosh and Kleiza become Bargs. Kleiza and the rest of the team will be getting better looks... Not sure, let's just hope. He said last year he wasn't used to being double teamed, thus he had quite abit of turnovers when double teamed...

So the NBA should stop counting baskets made off of rebounds?

If a player can score off of a rebound that is "creating their own shot"

Bargs will be going in the paint alot more this year now that Bosh is gone, that's for sure. This could be good news for TO. Because if teams start doube teaming Bargs in the paint, then Bargs becomes Bosh and Kleiza become Bargs. Kleiza and the rest of the team will be getting better looks... Not sure, let's just hope. He said last year he wasn't used to being double teamed, thus he had quite abit of turnovers when double teamed...

I am not so sure about that at all.

With Johnson instead of Bosh you have someone whose primary game at this point is scoring in the paint in one of a myriad of ways. Plus Bargs is a better three point shooter than Kleiza. Kleiza scored an awful lot of points in the Worlds off of shots in the paint.

My sense is that with Johnson playing instead of Bosh, Bargs will have a lot more uncontested three point and long distance two shots, so his shooting percentage of spot ups should go up. He can hit the medium to long range jump shot. Johnson when the 09-10 season ended still had a lot of problem making the mid-range jump shot yet alone a three ball.

So I think Bargs will park out beyond the arc and let Johnson and Kleiza do all the hard and dirty work in the paint.

eh, if you can make almost $10 million a year throwing up uncontested three ball shots, why not go for it?

Its a good job 4sure.

Who would want to do the hard dirty work when they can get paid twice as much doing the nice clean easy work.?

If a player can score off of a rebound that is "creating their own shot"

Is it a reply to my post? If it were so, it sort of missed the point I was trying to stress. There's no doubt that by scoring off of a rebound the player creates a shot of his own. If Amir is good at that, and he seems to be good (at least much better than Bargnani), I'm the first to be happy. But there's a difference between those shots and shots which are a result of a play, and the difference is that the play has produced a shot that has missed. This shot interrupts the play. That's why I was interested in reading the stats for what they show in terms of team plays.

Is it a reply to my post? If it were so, it sort of missed the point I was trying to stress. There's no doubt that by scoring off of a rebound the player creates a shot of his own. If Amir is good at that, and he seems to be good (at least much better than Bargnani), I'm the first to be happy. But there's a difference between those shots and shots which are a result of a play, and the difference is that the play has produced a shot that has missed. This shot interrupts the play. That's why I was interested in reading the stats for what they show in terms of team plays.

The difference my friend is that the chances of making a shot off of a rebound are a lot higher than dribbling around with the ball for 5 to 10 seconds before shooting it.

For example Johnson and Superman are two of the better offensive rebounders in the NBA.

In 2009-10 Johnson made 64% of his shot attempts off a rebound.

Superman made 72% of his shots attempts off a offensive rebound

There is no one who has ever played over 1,000 minutes in their NBA career who has had a TS% or eFG% greater than 60% yet alone greater than 64%

For 2009-10 here are the Raptors comparative actual FG%

Isolation----39.6% - An isolation play is just what its name implies. It is a play where the eventual shooter is isolated with ball and dribbles around trying to find the best location to take a shot or as some would say "creating their own shot"

Offensive Rebounds --58.6%

Bosh by the way only made 39.7% of his FGA on ISO plays. However he did get fouled on 18.2% of them.

Players who shoot a lot of ISO shots know that they will score the most not by actually taking an ISO shot but by getting fouled an getting to the line where the PPP becomes a lot higher on that type of play. Even after factoring in say an 80% FT shooting percentage

[QUOTE=Buddahfan;42111]The difference my friend is that the chances of making a shot off of a rebound are a lot higher than dribbling around with the ball for 5 to 10 seconds before shooting it.

For example Johnson and Superman are two of the better offensive rebounders in the NBA.

In 2009-10 Johnson made 64% of his shot attempts off a rebound.

Superman made 72% of his shots attempts off a offensive rebound

There is no one who has ever played over 1,000 minutes in their NBA career who has had a TS% or eFG% greater than 60% yet alone greater than 64%

My friend I am just gong to have to nudge your way of thinking about this concept[/QUOTE

You state the obvious, old Buddah. Still, the numbers can be read in many different ways, and one of those is based on what happens inside team plays, and not after the conclusion of a team play. Then, if Amir grabs a lot of off rebounds and scores, good for him and good for the raps.

The conclusion of a play is important but what is a lot more important is what a team does with the ball on that offensive possession before giving the ball back to their opponents.

I would say that teams that have a net plus differential on second chance points over a season win a lot more games than teams who rely on ISO plays to score and are outscored in second chance points.

You may disagree with the above statement so be it my friend.

If that is so lets just agree to disagree for now.

I would say that teams that have a net plus differential on second chance points win a lot more games than teams who are outscored in second chance points. The fact of relying on ISO plays to score isn't linked to how the team scores on second chances. Or not? I'm getting a bit confused...

I would say that teams that have a net plus differential on second chance points win a lot more games than teams who are outscored in second chance points. The fact of relying on ISO plays to score isn't linked to how the team scores on second chances. Or not? I'm getting a bit confused...

I can understand your confusion as the conversation has meandered off course a bit.

I was trying to show that Johnson creates a lot of his own shots based upon how I define the term creating one's own shot. That he creates his own shot in more of a variety of ways and different ways than Baragnani does.

As I recall you or someone else said that we can expect Bargnani to get more of his shots in the paint with Bosh gone then with Bosh in Toronto.

My response was that I don't agree with that position because Johnson and Kleiza will take most of the shots in the paint. In the process especially Johnson because he takes so many of his shots at the rim that when Bargnani plays on the court with him vs Bosh he gets more "open" spot up shots. Since that is what Bargnani shoots the most of and because he can score from beyond the arc therefore he will take just as high a percentage of his shots via the spot up jump shot in 10-11 as in 09-10 if not a higher percentage of them. As a result he will be open more often and take fewer contested spot up shots and that as a result his spot up shooting percentage will also go up in 10-11 vs 09-10.

Then somehow we got sidetracked into the effectiveness of the isolation play which everyone agrees is a creating your own shot play vs scoring off of an offensive rebound which I contend is creating your own shot. Why because

1. First you have to get the rebound
2. Second you have to then be able to create a shot off of that rebound.

Most players can not do that and do it well. Johnson needs to improve his 64% FG% on put backs from last season. I would like to see him get it up to 70% with a bunch of and-ons included. Even if he can ever do this it will take time and experience to learn how to be able to draw the contact get fouled and make the put back shot with a high degree of accuracy like Howard can. I am not saying that Johnson will ever be able to do it. I am just saying this is something he should work on and try and achieve.

Then we meandered even more into comparing the effectiveness of an ISO play vs the effectiveness of scoring on a put back shot. I contend when comparing the put back shot to the ISO shot.

1. Put back shots result in higher PPP then ISO shots
2. Scoring off of a put back shot is what people call second chance points
3. That it is highly beneficial to a team to have a plus differential in second chance ponts
4. That the ISO shot is over rated and one of the less effective in terms of creating your own shot and in PPP.
5. Fans love the player who can create his own shot and over rate it because it is an exciting play even if it is not a particularly efficient one in terms of points per possession.
6. NBA coaches and players have come to the conclusion that the only way to be relatively effective in scoring; i.e having a high PPP on ISO shots is for players to get to the free throw line a lot when they create their own shots in this manner.

That is why the players who use the ISO shot try to draw a foul as much as they try to make the shot. They realize that over a game and a season that the ISO play unless accompanied by a foul shot a good deal of the time is basically one of the least effective shooting plays in basketball in terms of field goal percentage and points per possession.

Fans and the media love the player who can create his own shot off of the dribble even if it is one of the least effective ways to try and score because it can be so exciting when a player does score off of an ISO play. Whereas no one really gets excited about someone scoring off of a put-back unless they really slam it like Howard does. Therefore writers, the media and fans tend to fall in love with the beauty of the play and not the results.

It is like the line from a song that Harry Belafonte used to sing. If you want to be happy for the rest of your life make a ugly women your wife.

I can understand your confusion as the conversation has meandered off course a bit.

I was trying to show that Johnson creates a lot of his own shots based upon how I define the term creating one's own shot. That he creates his own shot in more of a variety of ways and different ways than Baragnani does.

As I recall you or someone else said that we can expect Bargnani to get more of his shots in the paint with Bosh gone then with Bosh in Toronto.

My response was that I don't agree with that position because Johnson and Kleiza will take most of the shots in the paint. In the process especially Johnson because he takes so many of his shots at the rim that when Bargnani plays on the court with him vs Bosh he gets more "open" spot up shots. Since that is what Bargnani shoots the most of and because he can score from beyond the arc therefore he will take just as high a percentage of his shots via the spot up jump shot in 10-11 as in 09-10 if not a higher percentage of them. As a result he will be open more often and take fewer contested spot up shots and that as a result his spot up shooting percentage will also go up in 10-11 vs 09-10.

Then somehow we got sidetracked into the effectiveness of the isolation play which everyone agrees is a creating your own shot play vs scoring off of an offensive rebound which I contend is creating your own shot. Why because

1. First you have to get the rebound
2. Second you have to then be able to create a shot off of that rebound.

Most players can not do that and do it well. Johnson needs to improve his 64% FG% on put backs from last season. I would like to see him get it up to 70% with a bunch of and-ons included. Even if he can ever do this it will take time and experience to learn how to be able to draw the contact get fouled and make the put back shot with a high degree of accuracy like Howard can. I am not saying that Johnson will ever be able to do it. I am just saying this is something he should work on and try and achieve.

Then we meandered even more into comparing the effectiveness of an ISO play vs the effectiveness of scoring on a put back shot. I contend when comparing the put back shot to the ISO shot.

1. Put back shots result in higher PPP then ISO shots
2. Scoring off of a put back shot is what people call second chance points
3. That it is highly beneficial to a team to have a plus differential in second chance ponts
4. That the ISO shot is over rated and one of the less effective in terms of creating your own shot and in PPP.
5. Fans love the player who can create his own shot and over rate it because it is an exciting play even if it is not a particularly efficient one in terms of points per possession.
6. NBA coaches and players have come to the conclusion that the only way to be relatively effective in scoring; i.e having a high PPP on ISO shots is for players to get to the free throw line a lot when they create their own shots in this manner.

That is why the players who use the ISO shot try to draw a foul as much as they try to make the shot. They realize that over a game and a season that the ISO play unless accompanied by a foul shot a good deal of the time is basically one of the least effective shooting plays in basketball in terms of field goal percentage and points per possession.

Fans and the media love the player who can create his own shot off of the dribble even if it is one of the least effective ways to try and score because it can be so exciting when a player does score off of an ISO play. Whereas no one really gets excited about someone scoring off of a put-back unless they really slam it like Howard does. Therefore writers, the media and fans tend to fall in love with the beauty of the play and not the results.

It is like the line from a song that Harry Belafonte used to sing. If you want to be happy for the rest of your life make a ugly women your wife.

I agreed on the fact that there will be a better floor spacing (you said that, remember?), not having said that Bargnani will shoot more in the paint. Since it largely depends from the plays run by the team, I think that coaches will have to decide where Bargani will get the ball.
Having taken care of that, I find extremely interesting the possibility your're hinting at: if Amir gets a little bit better on what he does best, and if it's true that Bargnani will increase his % on ISO plays, then there's reason for some optimism (at least if defence won't suck, but this is another issue).

One of the best threads in awhile Buddha. What I would like to see is how the shot distribution will be handled between a starting 5 of

-Jack
-Derozan
-Kleiza
-Johnson
-Bargnani

Unfortunately, I think Derozan will get the least amount of touches of those 5 and be used as a slasher like last year. His Jumper has improved, but I'd rather Kleiza, Jack or Bargnani handle the jumper duties. Jack and Bargnani will both be responsible for the 3-pointers and drives. Kleiza will fill in for Bosh by being set up at the block with Johnson positioned at the basket. Derozan will be roaming looking for the open shot or drive opportunities.

As for shot distribution I see Amir first option if open, otherwise it will most likely be this.
1. Kleiza 2a.Bargnani 2b.Jack 4.Johnson 5. Derozan.